Any chance we see some Ascend surround Bipole, Dipole speakers ?

[Djoel]

I love-love my Towers doing rear duties for Hi Rez 5.1 music in all it's flavors SACD, DVD-A, Blu ray -A, even Blu Ray concerts, PURE BLISS , but for movies watching they're are not as engaging for me, which I suspect it might just be position height deal.

I can put some sort of wooden stage ( as they deserve )to get a more envelope thing going, but I'm sure that it will hurt my music listening, and that's something I'm not ready to do.

So I was wondering if there’s any chance we'll see something from Ascend that will be more conducive to flick enveloping speakers. I’m one who believes that any speaker can do both, that being said I just don’t any of us in my dilemma sticking tower a few feet above ear level up on ours walls.

I love the sound of my old Dali WS200 which we’re really Dipole, nor Bipole but they cast a lovely bubble over me and my guest with smooth ambiance never pulling me away from the fronts action.

Would love to see Ascend speaker just for this application and keep it all in the family, as I'm sure they'll sell tons :)


What do you guys think?

Dan

[GirgleMirt]

Do you mean surrounds or just plain dipole towers/bookshelves? :confused:


I can put some sort of wooden stage ( as they deserve )to get a more envelope thing going, but I'm sure that it will hurt my music listening, and that's something I'm not ready to do.
What does that mean?


I’m one who believes that any speaker can do both, that being said I just don’t any of us in my dilemma sticking tower a few feet above ear level up on ours walls.
Quite lost... Are you saying that putting speakers on stands or elevating them in some way turns them into bi or dipole speakers?

Ah ok just reread the thread title, so you really meant surrounds... Oh well... I thought the question was really if Ascend would ever make dipole speakers... lol And I somewhat liked that question and thought it was a very interesting topic! There's quite a few great dipole speakers out there, (Linkwitz, Vivid, etc.) but in my experience what they seem to have in common is a huge soundstage... Anyhow, not derailing this thread any further ;)

[Djoel]

Do you mean surrounds or just plain dipole towers/bookshelves? :confused:

Surround speakers. Not mono-pole types thou.



What does that mean?

To raised them up, it's something I don't want to do.


Quite lost... Are you saying that putting speakers on stands or elevating them in some way turns them into bi or dipole speakers?

You got it below ;), Sorry about the confusion as I'm at work and shouldn't be multi tasking :p


Ah ok just reread the thread title, so you really meant surrounds... Oh well... I thought the question was really if Ascend would ever make dipole speakers... lol And I somewhat liked that question and thought it was a very interesting topic! There's quite a few great dipole speakers out there, (Linkwitz, Vivid, etc.) but in my experience what they seem to have in common is a huge soundstage... Anyhow, not derailing this thread any further ;)

Again...Just saying would love me some Ascend surround speakers please. :D

Dan

[curtis]

I've been in some mixing studios. Most use monopoles for surrounds.

[Djoel]

I've been in some mixing studios. Most use monopoles for surrounds.



I'm talking about for for movies.. I'm cover for music with the towers, and wouldn't want any other way ;)!

DJoel

[curtis]

I'm talking about for for movies.. I'm cover for music with the towers, and wouldn't want any other way ;)!

Yes...I meant for movies. Most of the mixing rooms I have been in use monopoles.

The ones that used bipole/dipoles were the HUGE mixing stages that had more than one speaker along the sides.

Surround channels are discrete. If an engineer wanted to created a diffused sound, as with di/bipoles, he/she could do so by messing with phase of the output between the surrounds and mains.

If you had di/bipoles, all you would ever get is diffused sound, and nothing direct.

[DougMac]

I regard bipoles/dipoles as a throwback to the days when surround was purely ambient. Movies are now mixed with discrete location cues, which need direct speakers to properly image.

I use 170's for side surrounds and 200's for back surrounds, all properly placed in relation to our listening area. We are awash in sound if that is what the sound engineer intended, yet can pinpoint a sound if that is what was intended.

We recently watched a Breaking Bad episode titled "The Fly". They had the fly circling our heads so realistically I was trying to swat it away!

[avsnoob10]

Yes...I meant for movies. Most of the mixing rooms I have been in use monopoles.

The ones that used bipole/dipoles were the HUGE mixing stages that had more than one speaker along the sides.

Surround channels are discrete. If an engineer wanted to created a diffused sound, as with di/bipoles, he/she could do so by messing with phase of the output between the surrounds and mains.

If you had di/bipoles, all you would ever get is diffused sound, and nothing direct.

Curtis: I have no knowledge and or experience in regard to studios. Is a typical mixing studio techniques focus on home release or for commercial theater release?

I still don't know if I need bipole/dipole/monopole but would like Dave to make a wall mountable speaker with same drivers as Sierra-1/Towers/Horizon or closely timbre matched with Sierra-1/Towers/Horizon in same finishes as mains.

[curtis]

Curtis: I have no knowledge and or experience in regard to studios. Is a typical mixing studio techniques focus on home release or for commercial theater release?

I still don't know if I need bipole/dipole/monopole but would like Dave to make a wall mountable speaker with same drivers as Sierra-1/Towers/Horizon or closely timbre matched with Sierra-1/Towers/Horizon in same finishes as mains.
Let's say a made for TV movie, or a TV show. Those are mixed in smaller studios, using monopole studio monitors, in a 5.1 configuration, aimed for home playback.

Theater movies are mixed in the rooms as I describe my previous post, aimed for commercial release. If they are released to disc, some are remixed in the studios describe above.

For Dave to make a "Sierra" specifically for wall mounting, I am sure he has to know that he can sell enough of them to make it worthwhile...not just to him, but to the consumer as well.

[Redeka]

On the topic of surrounds, I have a quick question. Let's imagine the front sound stage for now. When playing audio in stereo through the 2 front speakers, a listener position directly in between the speakers gets a great "phantom centre" effect. This effect disappears very quickly by moving just slightly left or right of centre, leading to a localized sound coming from the speaker on the same side the listener is seated. When using a centre channel in the front sound stage as well, this is reduced significantly.

My question is if this same effect happens with the rear channels? Considering a standard 5.1 set-up doesn't have a rear centre channel, is the sound easily localized to one speaker or the other depending on where you are sitting?

[jollo]

On the topic of surrounds, I have a quick question. Let's imagine the front sound stage for now. When playing audio in stereo through the 2 front speakers, a listener position directly in between the speakers gets a great "phantom centre" effect. This effect disappears very quickly by moving just slightly left or right of centre, leading to a localized sound coming from the speaker on the same side the listener is seated. When using a centre channel in the front sound stage as well, this is reduced significantly.

My question is if this same effect happens with the rear channels? Considering a standard 5.1 set-up doesn't have a rear centre channel, is the sound easily localized to one speaker or the other depending on where you are sitting?

In my room, what you said is correct. I'm using a couple Axiom M80 towers for surrounds. In the sweet spot, they image great but if you sit to the left or right of the good spot, the sound gets localized. I was using Axiom QS8's (quad poles) but they also localized when sitting off center but not as much as the direct radiating towers. I like the towers for surrounds so much, that I wouldn't switch back regardless.

[Redeka]

In my room, what you said is correct. I'm using a couple Axiom M80 towers for surrounds. In the sweet spot, they image great but if you sit to the left or right of the good spot, the sound gets localized. I was using Axiom QS8's (quad poles) but they also localized when sitting off center but not as much as the direct radiating towers. I like the towers for surrounds so much, that I wouldn't switch back regardless.

Is there any way to avoid this? Perhaps by placing the speakers further back from the listening position?

[jollo]

Is there any way to avoid this? Perhaps by placing the speakers further back from the listening position?

I think that would help. Higher in elevation and or further away will help get a more diffuse sound field. I'm using direct radiators on purpose though. I like surround effects to have a distinct direction. I like the less diffuse sound. I don't think that's to everyone's taste though.

[RicardoJoa]

Could your localization issues be due to receiver set up?
The othe day, i adjusted the rear distance on the receiver, and that made effect to sound more apparent which i felt so distracted from the rear speakers.
Just a thought.

[muzz]

I'm with curtis on this one.
They mix it purposely that way, and has been stated, this isn't the old days with Faux surround- these are dedicated channels.
Dave has been asked this question before, and I believe he feels that it should be direct as intended by the studio sound engineer.....I may have misunderstood him though, so don't take that as gospel.

[Dread Pirate Robert]

Surround channels are discrete. If an engineer wanted to created a diffused sound, as with di/bipoles, he/she could do so by messing with phase of the output between the surrounds and mains.

Right, and in addition I've noticed that movie scores are more frequently being mixed as multichannel music these days, which obviously favors direct-radiating monopoles. For a greater sense of envelopment in all cases, place the surround speakers as far away as you can (within reason ;)) and raise them a few feet above ear level (also make sure that they're placed at the sides of the listening area, and only slightly behind, if anything--whatever sounds best).


If you had di/bipoles, all you would ever get is diffused sound, and nothing direct.

I concur with those who have said that di/bipoles were for a different era, when there was only a single band-limited (dull sounding) surround channel. You had to play around with the signal, through processing (e.g. THX decorrelation) and/or speaker configuration, in order to get a sense of "spaciousness," but modern soundtracks are different and even older soundtracks that haven't been remixed benefit noticeably from newer matrix processing such as DPL II.

[muzz]

It's hard enough to get speakers to re-produce what the mixer intended( colorless- in engineering and in-room), start bouncing them off walls and ceilings, and all that effort goes out the window.

I can see it now:
" I just spent a bunch of $, and these speakers sound awful in my room, sound like tin cans"
" How close to the ceiling are they, and what type of ceiling is it?"
" The speakers are pretty close to the ceiling, less than a foot below- in the corners, and the ceiling is a very expensive deep tin baffle design"
" O brother....thanks for participating....."

[Dread Pirate Robert]

It's hard enough to get speakers to re-produce what the mixer intended( colorless- in engineering and in-room), start bouncing them off walls and ceilings, and all that effort goes out the window.

This is true, and so much so, in my opinion, that in the case of bipoles and especially dipoles, it doesn't matter all that much what speakers are used, even ones from a different manufacturer. I certainly wouldn't spend much money on such speakers because they're not going to sound transparent and accurate to what is intended anyway.

As for my own home theater "journey" over the years, I've gone from experimenting with dipoles all the way to monopoles radiating directly toward the viewers, and it is the latter I've been the most satisfied with, given today's soundtracks and equipment (also applies to old matrix surround soundtracks with modern processing). And since my surround speakers--two CBM-170 SEs--are mounted on the rear wall with the seats right up against the wall, I've even heard an improvement from moving the tweeters as far away from the wall as possible (to avoid strong early reflections) by laying the speakers on their sides and toeing them directly toward the viewers' ears. This configuration is also favorable in terms of dispersion (for this speaker model) since they're mounted higher than the viewers, and I couldn't be happier with the results--the cleanest, most transparent surround field that sounds just as spacious and/or musical (there is a lot of full-fidelity music in the surround channels of many of today's movie soundtracks) as intended.

Some folks just prefer the effect of di/bipoles no matter what, and I can't say that they're wrong, but I do think that they are missing out on some things, such as fidelity (significant for many modern soundtracks), impact (at times on some soundtracks), effective imaging for the most coherent all-around sound field (you may be surprised if you've never heard truly properly set up monopole surround speakers), and artistic intent.

[Veda]

I regard bipoles/dipoles as a throwback to the days when surround was purely ambient.

What? I thought ambient = ultimate as even front speakers should be ambient considering Mbl 101 X-Treme costs $180000. :rolleyes:

On a more serious note, if you want wider soundstage from the speakers (not recording) it's better to use ribbon array such as a Newform Research R630 than dipoles. You may even prefer them as fronts even if they're not the most accurate speakers.

[N Boros]

This is true, and so much so, in my opinion, that in the case of bipoles and especially dipoles, it doesn't matter all that much what speakers are used, even ones from a different manufacturer. I certainly wouldn't spend much money on such speakers because they're not going to sound transparent and accurate to what is intended anyway.

As for my own home theater "journey" over the years, I've gone from experimenting with dipoles all the way to monopoles radiating directly toward the viewers, and it is the latter I've been the most satisfied with, given today's soundtracks and equipment (also applies to old matrix surround soundtracks with modern processing). And since my surround speakers--two CBM-170 SEs--are mounted on the rear wall with the seats right up against the wall, I've even heard an improvement from moving the tweeters as far away from the wall as possible (to avoid strong early reflections) by laying the speakers on their sides and toeing them directly toward the viewers' ears. This configuration is also favorable in terms of dispersion (for this speaker model) since they're mounted higher than the viewers, and I couldn't be happier with the results--the cleanest, most transparent surround field that sounds just as spacious and/or musical (there is a lot of full-fidelity music in the surround channels of many of today's movie soundtracks) as intended.

Some folks just prefer the effect of di/bipoles no matter what, and I can't say that they're wrong, but I do think that they are missing out on some things, such as fidelity (significant for many modern soundtracks), impact (at times on some soundtracks), effective imaging for the most coherent all-around sound field (you may be surprised if you've never heard truly properly set up monopole surround speakers), and artistic intent.

I just sold my left/right, center and surround speakers to get a brand that is less fatiguing and has more fidelity. Ascend Acoustics speakers have been highly regarded among other brands but are towards the higher end of what I wanted to spend in terms of my budget. I am planning on building a dedicated room with with two rows of seating, but the width can only be about 11 to 12 feet. In my case it doesn't make sense to have a direct firing surround speaker. Only the people sitting in the center seats in either rows would get a good surround experience. A direct firing speaker would probably be okay in the surround back position in my case with two rows.

I think that the argument for more fidelity with a direct firing speaker in the surround position is a valid one, but only makes sense if you are only concerned about the sweet spot (like it would be set up in a recording studio), or if the room is very large and no seat is really all that close to the surround speakers. I prefer to set up a room so that I can enjoy movies with friends and family, whenever possible, though I often do watch movies alone. I am concerned about getting the most fidelity, but in all seats in the two row home theater (this is the same reason I am going to have two subwoofers.) Unfortunately, making sure that the speaker manufacturer makes good bipole speakers begins to limit the number of choices of good speakers.

[SGCSG1]

What I want is a modern pair of Dahlquist DQ-12's. Or DQ-10's.